Sustainable development of international arbitration: rethinking subject-matter arbitrability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discussion pertaining to the inarbitrability of public policy disputes has a long-standing position in arbitration law. To protect public interests, domestic legal systems imposed a general ban on the arbitration of public policy disputes. In 1985, however, the United States Supreme Court in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. removed antitrust disputes from the category of inarbitrable matters and marked a new phase in the history of inarbitrability. The general nature of Mitsubishi's reasoning affected other Western jurisdictions to remove the inarbitrability of public policy disputes in order to develop international arbitration. Mitsubishi's rationale and holding, therefore, can be considered to be pillars of the new approach to inarbitrability. This thesis critically analyzes Mitsubishi's reasoning and the record of the past three decades in light of case law and the views of prominent scholars. It draws a picture of the current situation of arbitrability in the United States, Canada, France and Belgium. The discussion explains that the removal of inarbitrability has resulted in an ineffective protection for public interests, which has caused dissatisfaction in certain sectors of society and may amount to formation of a radical view hostile to arbitration. The situation raises concerns as to whether the current development of arbitration will endure. This thesis borrows the term "sustainable development" from environmental law and economy, and applies it to international arbitration law. By redefining "sustainable development" according to the needs of international arbitration, this thesis provides a solution for developing arbitration without jeopardizing public policy interests. The solution balances private and public interests to achieve sustainable development in international arbitration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".